https://itvision.altervista.org/why.lin ... -2017.html
Btw, I don't think anyone linked to it, but here jwz excorciates the whining Debian cultists on their own buglist:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo ... bug=819703
Haha so funny to read the Debian cultists and kool aid sippers comment on how evil Jamie Zawinski is! In his blog in this post he excorciated Debian's crappy philosophy:
https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/04/i-woul ... ent-166433
... Getting email about a years-old already-fixed bug is frustrating if it's because the user was simply too lazy to upgrade. But what I think you have all recently learned here is that thats not what's going on. It's not that they're lazy, it's that Debian has gone out of their way to make it difficult for naive users to run code that does not contain years-old bugs.
Even if I just ignored their reports -- or worse, pointed them the delightful and charming people who populate the Debian bug system to have them ignore them for me -- there are still users who are trying to use my works, and who are experiencing bugs that they should not have to experience because they were fixed years ago. That's extremely frustrating. "I already fixed this, thanks again, Debian!"
And this is by Debian's "design".
Or let us look at another person who has an independent functioning brain comment on what Stable in the bizarro Debian world actually means:
Debian ships an operating system that prides itself on stability. The Debian definition of stability is a very specific one - rather than referring to how often the software crashes or misbehaves, it refers to how often the software changes behaviour. Debian is very reluctant to upgrade software that is part of a stable release, to the extent that developers will attempt to backport individual security fixes to the version they shipped rather than upgrading to a release that contains all those security fixes but also adds a new feature. The argument here is that the new release may also introduce new bugs, and Debian's users desire stability (in the "things don't change" sense) more than new features. ...
Omg someone with an independent, autonomous brain on here who can exit the gravity of crusty Debian dogma:
Not that I need it, because I can use testing/unstable, but you can't present something as outdated as Jessie to desktop users, and then warn them about testing/unstable. In that case, Debian should warn desktop users against Debian all together. Actually, I think that Debian should divide into two different releases. One conservative server-edition, and one more current desktop-edition.